And that seems to be v the main point that gun control enthusiasts just can't comprehend.

Thank you for taking a contradiciton and saying it was your main point. I did laugh.

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

Restrictive laws only affect people that don't break the law. It's already illegal to go on a mass shooting spree, and most of the people doing it got their guns illegally.

Restrictive laws can also be used to squeeze off supply chains, or affect purchasing decisions. If the only gun you can buy legally buy has a 10-round magazine and requires 30 seconds for an expert to change the clip, then when you steal guns, you'll be stealing a gun that has a 10-round magazine and requires 30 seconds to change the clip.

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

So yes, restricting guns will absolutely limit the right of self defense for law abiding citizens. It will not necessarily hinder a criminal's ability to go on a mass killing spree. They'd have to respect and follow the law in order for it to affect them.

At a minimum, all the guns used at Sandy Hook were legally acquired. Which shooting sprees featured black-market guns, that had not been legally purchased?

Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

Sure, but to say something should be banned because it's only useful in rare situations isn't very convincing, imo. You are aware that more people are killed by lightning every year than in mass shootings, right?

I agree. When you have time to discuss it in more detail (said in recognition that you do have a life), I'd be interested in any evidence you had that the utility of a 30-round clip (i.e., the frequency of occasions where having 30 rounds easily available, as opposed to 6 or 10, is a life-or-death situation) outweighs the harm caused by people taking advantage of such clips. Mass shootings are more common that riots, for example.

Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

No they weren't, nor was the shooter even legal to buy them (not considering any background issues, he was too young). He stole them.

That was my point. Thgey were legally acquired by his mother, and he stole them. If his mother had only been able to buy guns with reduced ammunition loads and that were difficult to reload, the shooter would have been able to fire fewer bullets. They were not black-market guns. Limiting the types of legal guns will, eventually, limit the capabilities of such shooters.

Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

Restrictive laws can also be used to squeeze off supply chains, or affect purchasing decisions. If the only gun you can buy legally buy has a 10-round magazine and requires 30 seconds for an expert to change the clip, then when you steal guns, you'll be stealing a gun that has a 10-round magazine and requires 30 seconds to change the clip.

Two points on the 30 round magazines- first there are literally thousands that are legally owned. I can't see the them being taken out of circulation. Cutting off the 'supply chain' would take decades if it is even possible. For example I am sure that police weapons will maintain the 30 round mags. If someone really wants one they could steal that.

2nd a magazine is fairly simple to make. So I believe we would be creating a black market for 30 round mags. Additionally how can you tell a pre-ban mag from an old one?

I would estimate it would take me at most 3 seconds to change a 10 round magazine in any circumstances. If I practiced it would take much less than that probably about 1 second. What are you talking about -taking an expert 30 seconds to change? Do you mean 30 seconds to load an empty magazine?

If we are talking about pistols I would just carry multiple pistols and skip the reloading.

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors).

That was my point. Thgey were legally acquired by his mother, and he stole them. If his mother had only been able to buy guns with reduced ammunition loads and that were difficult to reload, the shooter would have been able to fire fewer bullets. They were not black-market guns. Limiting the types of legal guns will, eventually, limit the capabilities of such shooters.

And that wouldn't have helped in this instance. When shooting a bunch of 5 year olds at point blank range, the size of the clip doesn't really matter.

If the size if the clip mattered and his mom didn't have a big enough clip, he would have stole them somewhere else, modified it to fit his needs, or git it from the black market.

I think the point has already been made but he didn't need 30rd magazines in order to do the amount of damage he did. He "wasted" so many rounds shooting small children several times when they would have suffered the same fate if he'd only shot them once or twice (I just want to say, I'm trying to make a technical point here, but this is difficult to discuss because it truly is horrible). So here we are considering restrictions to magazine size when this tragedy didn't happen because of large magazines. It's an irrelevant aspect of the larger debate in my opinion. We don't need to prove the usefulness of large magazines any more than we need to prove the usefulness of what we say in order to have the freedom to say it. The burden here is on the ones wanting to restrict our freedoms to prove that there is a good reason to do so and that those restrictions would make a difference. In my opinion they wouldn't make any significant difference.

I have a brother-in-law in CA. He recently purchased parts to build his own AR-15. In California the magazine of a semi-auto rifle can't be detachable, only the way they have worked this is that the mag release button needs to be pressed with the tip of a pen or bullet before it can be slid over to release the magazine. This is the kind of silliness that I don't think we need. It changes nothing and the mag release could be modified within minutes if for some reason I needed to use it to commit a crime. This is exactly the sort of rule that only affects people who are not a threat in the first place. And it does make the weapon less effective for the law abiding citizen. That's the thing, again, the reason we have these weapons is because they are tools used for self-defense. They can also be the tools of criminals. But to make them less effective is not the answer. It reduces their ability to be used for self-defense while changing little about the criminal way in which they can be used.

So I want to paint a full picture because California has basically left in place the restrictions of the first AWB. My BIL has an AR-15. In order to have it in California and have it not fall under their state AWB it has the following limitations.

10rd magazine. So he can't load a 20 or 30 round magazine into the rifle. Guess what, larger magazines are available. So if he wanted one he could have one, he'd just be breaking CA law. He's a law abiding citizen, so he plays by the rules. Regardless, if he wanted to commit a crime he'd still have 10 rounds at his disposal. Plenty for 99.99% of crimes people commit with guns. So while the question frequently asked is "do people need 30 rounds for self-defense?" Maybe maybe not, but criminals don't need 30 rounds to commit crimes, either.

The magazine requires 2 actions to remove it. In this case its a small button that he uses the nose of a bullet to press while he slides the mag release. So now it's not considered a removable magazine, even though it is removable and it's the only way to load the magazine. So this is a silly nonsense rule that is just a PITA without changing anything about crime or violence. The parts to change it back to a single action came with the lower, he could re-install them in minutes. If he didn't care about breaking the law he never would have installed the CA approved parts in the first place.

The stock can not be collapsible. That means that you can't have a folding stock or an adjustable stock. The idea being that it makes it more concealable. That's pretty silly since the barrel has to be at least 18" and the receiver adds another, I don't know 10" maybe. Rifles are not the weapon of choice for someone wanting to conceal a weapon. They don't make good "stick-'em-up" or liquor store robbery weapons. Hand guns are far better suited and MUCH cheaper (your typical AR costs at least $800, usually more) if that's what you want to do. But here's the annoying part. My wife is 4'9" tall (annoying in and of itself) but if I want to use the rifle and teach her how to use the rifle it makes a lot of sense to use an adjustable stock. That way the gun can be safely and comfortably fitted to each of us in a matter of seconds. But no, this is what we get with these meaningless gun restrictions passed by people who don't know a thing about guns. So on his gun he has what is actually an adjustable stock, only it has a rivet fixing its length and making it less useful. He's married to my wife's sister and she's also 4'9", so guess what, the gun doesn't fit her at all. In order to fire it she would have to fire from the hip, which is far less safe and far far far less accurate. And what criminal act does it prevent? Nothing. Nothing at all.

His gun never had this, but he also can't attach a bayonet. Whew. Sensible restriction there!

So there you go, the EBR (evil black rifle) has been tamed. So we're all better off now? Not in my opinion.

Are these the types of restrictions we have in store at the national level? I hope not. It changes nothing about crime and violence while making self-defense and lawful firearms ownership harder.

If there was a meaningful way to prevent gun violence while preserving 2nd Amendment rights I'd support it. But as it stands I think freedom is too dear to throw away for silly restrictions like the ones I've seen so far.

I'll offer my compromise. Make private sales require the same background check that the gun stores have to run. That is a pain in the ass, but that's fine. If I want to sell a firearm I have to go to a licensed FFL, pay them some sort of transfer fee and pay for the background check. Ok. Now we've done a background check on all gun sales, loophole closed.

I'm also for a more stringent background check. I'd be for a card that one must apply for that allows that person to purchase firearms. I think it'd work a little better and ultimately be more convenient than the current system. That way I could apply for my card, jump through whatever more rigorous hoops that are required, wait for it to be approved (days, maybe a week or two) then take it down to the gun store and not have to get a background check on site or have a waiting period to purchase a firearm.

I can imagine a lot of good reasons why people would oppose those compromises. I'm just in a mood to give a little here (before it's taken by people who don't know what they're doing) and I'd like what's given to have at least some positive impact on gun violence and what sort of whack-o's get their hands on guns.

I guess what you want, in the spirit of peacemaking/compromise, is a whole new industry that will thrive on stolen cards. We already have enough of a problem with identity theft.

Nah, we've done a hundred years of gradual socialism. What started out with a plain "shall not be infringed" has been infringed again and again a thousand times over, and in dozens of different ways nobody could ever have imagined, in 1789, as anything but plain infringement.

If free speech was still in vogue, or an independent Press was today functional, people would call it infringement and no judge would dare say it wasn't.

Two points on the 30 round magazines- first there are literally thousands that are legally owned. I can't see the them being taken out of circulation. Cutting off the 'supply chain' would take decades if it is even possible. For example I am sure that police weapons will maintain the 30 round mags. If someone really wants one they could steal that.

2nd a magazine is fairly simple to make. So I believe we would be creating a black market for 30 round mags. Additionally how can you tell a pre-ban mag from an old one?

I would estimate it would take me at most 3 seconds to change a 10 round magazine in any circumstances. If I practiced it would take much less than that probably about 1 second. What are you talking about -taking an expert 30 seconds to change? Do you mean 30 seconds to load an empty magazine?

If we are talking about pistols I would just carry multiple pistols and skip the reloading.

I agree it would take a long time for the magazines to be out of circulation. I don't see any short-term fixes..
I don't know how possible this is, but I'd like to see something that presents a level of difficulty along these lines: Every gun comes with a built-in combination lock, pre-set by the manufacturer, not changeable, with at least three digits. It requires one conbination to unload a magazine, a second combination (with no common digits in the same place) to load a magazine, and a third combination (again, no common digits in the same place) to fire the gun (so, you don't really need a safety).

Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

And that wouldn't have helped in this instance. When shooting a bunch of 5 year olds at point blank range, the size of the clip doesn't really matter.

If the size if the clip mattered and his mom didn't have a big enough clip, he would have stole them somewhere else, modified it to fit his needs, or git it from the black market.

Your second paragraph has an awful lot of speculation, all assuming he would have undertaken extra work and had the means to do so. As for the first, if you don't ven think that fewer bullets means less carnage, than I don't think there's much left to say on that issue.

Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

I think the point has already been made but he didn't need 30rd magazines in order to do the amount of damage he did. He "wasted" so many rounds shooting small children several times when they would have suffered the same fate if he'd only shot them once or twice (I just want to say, I'm trying to make a technical point here, but this is difficult to discuss because it truly is horrible). So here we are considering restrictions to magazine size when this tragedy didn't happen because of large magazines. ... 10rd magazine. So he can't load a 20 or 30 round magazine into the rifle. Guess what, larger magazines are available. So if he wanted one he could have one, he'd just be breaking CA law. He's a law abiding citizen, so he plays by the rules. Regardless, if he wanted to commit a crime he'd still have 10 rounds at his disposal. Plenty for 99.99% of crimes people commit with guns. So while the question frequently asked is "do people need 30 rounds for self-defense?" Maybe maybe not, but criminals don't need 30 rounds to commit crimes, either. ... My wife is 4'9" tall (annoying in and of itself) but if I want to use the rifle and teach her how to use the rifle it makes a lot of sense to use an adjustable stock.

If the shooter had smaller magazines, would he have been more efficient in his shot selection, or just shot fewer people? I don't see any reason for assumeing either, but think the latter possibility is worth exploring..
I appreciate how people who take the time to know and understand guns can make the modifications you describe. However, if you are not already a gun owner, and have just stolen an AR-15, is it really so eacy to make those modifications on such a weapon?.
I don't think magazine limitations will reduce occasions of crime, but I think it is possible it will reduce the ability to inflict mass carnage in a single criminal activity..
I can appreciate the inconveniece of having to buy separate rifles for you and your spouse. Outside of the added expense, is there any other reason that impact your ability to teach her how to shoot?

Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

Your second paragraph has an awful lot of speculation, all assuming he would have undertaken extra work and had the means to do so. As for the first, if you don't ven think that fewer bullets means less carnage, than I don't think there's much left to say on that issue.

You have a lot of speculation too, so it goes both ways. You're pretty much assuming that since he stole those guns from his mom, he could/would not have stolen them from any other place. And you're also assuming that since the weapons fit his needs, he could/would not have been capable of modifying them to fit his needs.

Did you see the videos I posted about people making their own assault weapons with a 3d printer? If you make this stuff illegal, all you'll be doing is taking them away from the law abiding citizens, and creating a black market for people to get really good at making them.

I don't know how possible this is, but I'd like to see something that presents a level of difficulty along these lines: Every gun comes with a built-in combination lock, pre-set by the manufacturer, not changeable, with at least three digits. It requires one conbination to unload a magazine, a second combination (with no common digits in the same place) to load a magazine, and a third combination (again, no common digits in the same place) to fire the gun (so, you don't really need a safety).

Holy cow, you'd be dead by the time you went through all of this malarkey.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SaltyDawg again

.

I guess this is about the sixth time you've said this. Maybe about the twentieth time OB has ignored whatever anyone said and repeated himself with the same mumbo jumbo straight from the gun confiscation talking points. . . . you know, only a hundred years of socialist "gradualism" piece by piece, word by word, sentence by sentence. . . . here a dot, there a gotcha. . . of eternal whittling away of the right of the American people to fight for their own liberty.

The British disarmed India without a whimper, and it took a Gandhi to remove the actual presence of British troops. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to be a Gandhi in some small way. India still hasn't shaken itself free of British neocolonialism under the false flag of the UN, and we still have British Lords wishing they could die and come back as a plague capable of decimating the human population on Planet Earth. . . . so there could be bigger forests to run the dogs after the foxes where gallant nobility could ride their fine steeds unimpeded by human rabble. . . .

Fabian socialism preaches non-violent but endlessly incremental human regimentation under essentially fascist principles of the "experts" self-styled as they may be, who actually have the money to control the government.

Marxism and most of the brands of statist socialism all see the need to disarm the public to prevent the people from ever having a chance to fight for their freedom.

OB appears to be on a mission to just wear everyone out with endless calls for some further measure of restriction, on the pretext that it will ever make the world better, under "expert" care. Looks to me like a school teacher who is just one more brick in the wall.

Or just one more apologist for statism.

well, he's worn me out, that's for sure. There's just no answer for stupidity like this. Just say no to statism, folks, and keep your powder dry.

Holy cow, you'd be dead by the time you went through all of this malarkey.

And that's the point, obviously. That "one shot heard around the world" could never have been fired against the grandest and most powerful army and navy in the world in 1776.

One thing about the British Lords and royalty. . . . they never really forget. . . . and never really give up.

It's not about the safety of our kids, or our rights to self-governance. It's about the safety of their kids and their right to rule the rest of mankind. And their convenience in doing so. . . .

Oh, and it's not just Brits with elite ruling classes. . . it's the Chinese, the Japanese, the Russians, and every other country with no effective representative governance on the ground. . . . and even in the US it has been more a dream than a reality from the outset. . .

and it will never be a reality any more than an informed and non-compliant populace can manage to impose on the arrogance of "experts" who spend their entire lives trying to manage opinion. . . .by jumping all over our natural sympathies for the innocent kids, or whatever. . . .

hooting and hollering like cowboys driving a herd of cattle. . . . into the pens.